S ERV* 



Society of the Cincinnati 

IN 


The State of Rhode Island and Providence 

Plantations 

INSTITUTED 

BY THE 

Commissioned Officers of tiie Rhode Island Conti¬ 
nental Line of the Revolution, June 24 , 1783 . 


OFFICERS 

1913-1914 

President, Hon. Asa Btrd Gardiner; LL.D., L.H.D., HI.If. 
Vice-President, Mr. George Washington Olney, LL.B. 
Secretary, Mr. Charles Leonard Frost Robinson, Ph.B. 
Treasurer, Mr. Thomas Arnold Peirce. 

Assistant Secretary, Hon. William Paine Sheffield, A.M. 
Assistant Treasurer, Mr. Thomas Gardner Stevens Turner. 




AN ARISTOCRACY 

IN A DEMOCRACY 


ADDRESS 


P>Y 


william Macdonald, ll.d., 

it 

Professor of American History in Brown University 


BEFORE 

The Society of the Cincinnati ** 

IN THE 

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 
At the State House, Newport, R. I., 

ON 

The Fourth of July, 1913. 


Published by the Society . 

1913 










AN ARISTOCRACY IN A DEMOCRACY 


On the Fourth of July, 1776, the Continental Congress 
adopted a Declaration of Independence which, among 
other things, declared as self-evident truths “that all men 
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator 
with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these 
rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving 
their just powers from the consent of the governed ; that 
whenever any form of government becomes destructive of 
these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to 
abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its 
foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers 
in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect 
their safety and happiness.” 

We shall go far astray in our effort to understand the 
origin of our American system of government if we sup¬ 
pose that these familiar phrases were intended only as 
an empty form, a dignified introduction to a. serious act of 
national self-assertion, a string of good-natured platitudes 
designed to catch the public ear and secure approval for 
the substantive part of the Declaration itself. On the 
contrary, they are nothing less than the foundation on 
which our government is built. They embody, in striking 
and cogent phrase, the uppermost political philosophy of 
modern times. They assert without reservation the equal¬ 
ity of all men; they declare that that equality arises from 
the nature of things, and is in no sense a concession by 
one man, or by any group of men, to the people as a 
whole; that government itself may rightfully exist only 
in the form which the people choose to have for the time 



4 


being; and that when the wish of the people changes, the 
form of government may rightfully change also. 

Here, at least, is no admission that government exists 
by Divine right, or takes this form or that on a priori 
grounds. The Declaration of Independence is a broad and 
unequivocal assertion of the unrestrained right of the 
people to do as they please, to make changes when and as 
they please, so long as life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness are not impaired; and whether or not they are 
impaired is, again, for the same uncontrolled people to 
decide. From the standpoint of the Congress of 1776, 
whatever is is right, provided only that the people have 
done it. As individuals or classes we are nothing; as 
parts of the mass only are we anything, and the mass 
must have its way. 

Go forward now a few years. On the tenth of May, 
1783, the American and French officers at the canton¬ 
ments of the American Army on the Hudson formed the 
Society of the Cincinnati. The declaration then adopted 
set forth that “to perpetuate as well the remembrance of 
this vast event [the achievement of independence] as the 
mutual friendships which have been formed under the 
pressure of common danger, and, in many instances, 
cemented by the blood of the parties, the officers of the 
American Army do hereby, in the most solemn manner, 
associate, constitute, and combine themselves into one 
society of Friends, to endure as long as they shall endure, 
or any of their eldest male posterity, and in failure thereof 
the collateral branches who may be judged worthy of be¬ 
coming its supporters and members/’ Upon the roll of 
original members, we are told, “appeared the names of all 
the great historic military and naval characters of the 
Revolution, and upon the roll of honorary members, 


5 


elected for their own lives only, appeared many of the 
signers of the Declaration of Independence.” 

The situation is interesting. Less than eight years after 
the Declaration, before the definite treaty of peace with 
Great Britain had been signed or the army disbanded, the 
officers of the American Army unite to form a patriotic 
society on an hereditary principle. To them and their 
descendants, preferably in the male line, were to belong 
the honors of the Cincinnati. None of them, we may be 
sure, was ignorant of the principles for which he had 
fought; none of them, perhaps, would have cared publicly 
to deny or question those principles. Yet an hereditary 
society, founded upon a necessarily small and limited mem¬ 
bership, may well at first sight seem to us, as it seemed to 
many at the time, a curious institution in a country dedi¬ 
cated to a belief in the universal equality of men. It seemed 
like the stuff of which, in the countries of the old world, 
aristocracies were made; and visions of class privileges 
and exemptions, decorations, honors, titles, courts, and 
thrones rose before the public mind and brought suspicion, 
criticism and hostility. Was it because there was no place 
for an aristocracy in a democracy, or because democracy it¬ 
self, not to speak of aristocracy, was so little understood, 
or because the doctrine of the Declaration of Independ¬ 
ence was already breaking down? 

Look forward once more to 1787, when the Federal 
Convention met at Philadelphia to frame the Constitution 
of the United States. Washington, first president of the 
Society of the Cincinnati, presided. Before him sat men 
to whom every step of the revolutionary struggle was a 
vivid personal memory; men who had signed the Declara¬ 
tion of Independence, framed the Articles of Confedera¬ 
tion and the constitutions of their States, served as gov- 


G 


ernors, judges, or members of assembly, and fought Great 
Britain in Congress and in the field. They were met to 
form a constitution which should receive the “consent of 
the governed,” and insure to themselves and their poster¬ 
ity those blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap¬ 
piness for which, according to the Declaration of Inde¬ 
pendence, governments exist among men. 

Did you ever reflect upon the characteristics of the Con¬ 
stitution framed by that Convention, and compare them 
with the fundamental principles of the Declaration of In¬ 
dependence? At only one point did the government of the 
United States rest upon direct popular action or control, 
and that is in the provision for the election of members 
of the House of Representatives. Here and nowhere else, 
and here only once in two years, were the people allowed 
to voice their will directly. The members of the Senate 
were to be elected, not by the people, but by the State 
Legislatures, and were to hold their places for six years. 
Only after four years, when two-thirds of the members 
might by rotation have retired, could the party complexion 
of the body be reversed. The President is not elected by 
the people, but by a clumsy device of secondary election 
which was antiquated before Washington died, and which 
is a hopeless anomaly to-day. A number of our Presi¬ 
dents, including the present Chief Magistrate, have held 
their offices with only a minority of the popular vote back 
of them. The judges of the Federal Courts are appointed 
by the President, and hold office for life. When it comes 
to amendments, the lack of direct popular control is 
equally apparent. No popular vote is taken on amend¬ 
ments, as we know, but secondary action through the 
State Legislatures is provided for, with, in addition, the 
requirement of a three-fourths majority to insure ratifica- 


7 


tion. Lastly, in none of the States was the Constitution 
submitted to popular vote, while in a significantly large 
number of States the ratifying conventions were not rep¬ 
resentative of the people as a whole. 

The truth is, of course, that there is little that is “popu¬ 
lar” about our national form of government. One can 
almost see embodied before him, in the careful provisions 
for appointment, secondary election and life tenure, the 
fear of direct and unfettered expression of the popular 
will. Equality and freedom, intact and secure in theory, 
are in practice hedged about with hard and fast restric¬ 
tions. What I wish to emphasize, however, is not that 
this is so, but that it was intended to be so. It was the 
intention to contrive a system which would check and 
limit popular action, and remove the government and its 
servants from too direct responsibility to the voters. It 
was intended that changes in public opinion should be 
registered but slowly in the form or personnel of the Fed¬ 
eral government. The fathers might well have written 
into the Constitution of the United States the purpose 
which John Locke stated with brutal frankness in his 
“Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina”—“that we may 
avoid erecting a numerous democracy.” What the fathers 
desired was government by the best men, for government 
by the people, in the sense of the Declaration of Independ¬ 
ence, they neither had nor liked. 

I have recalled to you these facts of our national his¬ 
tory in order to discuss with you briefly the function of 
an aristocracy in a twentieth century democracy. You 
Mil not, I am sure, think me presumptuous in saying that 
the subject seems to me peculiarly appropriate for a cele¬ 
bration such as you hold today, because you yourselves 
are, in a certain sense, an aristocracy. You belong to a 


s 


Society of which those only whose ancestors were of a 
particular social class may become members. I should 
feel very much ashamed of you if I did not think that you 
were all proud of your membership, and alive to the im¬ 
portance and dignity and honor of connection with some¬ 
thing that is exclusive. It is at your own risk that you 
have invited one who is not of your number to speak to 
you today and tell you what he thinks of you. Aristo¬ 
cratic, too, in the same sense, are the numberless societies 
of sons and daughters, descendants and dames, pioneers 
and pilgrims, cavaliers and favorite sons, which have mul¬ 
tiplied so prodigiously in recent years, and done for his¬ 
tory an indispensable service. With all of them there is 
some obvious element of ancestry, or service, or associa¬ 
tion which signalizes the group, sets it apart from others, 
awakens pride or patriotism at memory of it, erects a 
barrier which none but the few may pass. Any society 
of men or women to which only a few can by any possi¬ 
bility belong, from which the many, however worthy in 
other respects, must for some particular reason be forever 
excluded, is an aristocracy. I am here to ask with you 
the question whether such little aristocracies have any 
proper function to perform in American society, or 
whether they are anachronisms, useless or perhaps harm¬ 
ful growths on the body politic and social. 

The question seems to me to have the more approriate- 
ness because of the character of much present-day political 
discussion. Ours is peculiarly a moment of appeal to the 
people. That we have not, on the whole, been governed 
very well is pretty generally admitted. The explanation 
that I see offered most commonly is that the people do not 
control their government ; that self-constituted leaders get 
control of the machinery of government and work it for 


9 


their own advantage, and that the machinery itself is 
so contrived as to lend itself naturally to such misuse. 
Restore government to the people, to whom it belongs, give 
the popular will a full chance to designate officials and 
make laws, and the equality and freedom which are our 
birthright will once more become realties. 

Underlying this plea, for political reform is the assump¬ 
tion that the people, if left to themselves, will do right; 
that the judgment of the many is better and surer than 
the judgment of the few, and that the greatest good of the 
greatest number will be achieved as soon as we give every¬ 
body a voice as to how it shall be brought about. I scan 
the literature of contemporary political discussion in 
vain to discover that either the good motive, the wisdom, 
or the power of the people is, or ought to be, subject to 
really important limitation. Unless I misinterpret seri¬ 
ously the spirit of things, the demand of the hour is for 
the utmost measure of direct popular participation in the 
work of government, whether in the making of laws, or 
in their execution, or in the adjudication by the courts of 
controversies under them; and this demand is made, not 
in the spirit of revolution, or with a reckless willingness 
to try new experiments, but in a sincere belief that only 
in this wav will the best interests of the people and of 
government be served. 

An occasion like this is no place for a political speech, 
and I would like to allay at once the fears of any who 
may think that I am at the point of making one. It is 
not my intention to announce any program, or to weigh 
the merits or defects of any current proposals of change 
or reform. Precept and admonition of that sort are abund¬ 
ant, and there is no need of continuing the preachment. 
I am concerned here with a question which to me seems 


10 


much more fundamental, and consequently much more 
serious. 

I cannot but think that there is a truly extraordinary 
amount of unclear thinking in this, strenuous and reiter¬ 
ated demand for complete popular initiative and control. 
Doubtless the people must be allowed to manage their own 
affairs if they want to, for the very good reason that they 
have the power to do so if they choose. The ultimate 
sanction for law is physical force, and the majority of 
physical force, whenever it exerts itself, will always pre¬ 
vail. From this point, of view, a ballot may he regarded 
as representing a physical force back of it, and a majority 
of ballots, with whatever wisdom or stupidity they may 
be cast, will of course decide an election. Moreover, it 
is generally idle to quarrel with the popular choice. The 
oft-quoted saying of Burke, that, he did not know how to 
frame an indictment against a whole people, probes the 
depths of political ethics. The ethical principles of con¬ 
duct which constrain the individual fail utterly when ap¬ 
plied to the mass. To find a standard by which to try the 
actions of people in the aggregate is as difficult as to 
find a fulcrum for the lever with which to lift the globe. 
We can never say that the people are right, or that they 
are wrong, until time has applied to them the test of sur¬ 
vival. If what they do survives and brings, humanly con¬ 
sidered, prosperity and well-being, we are bound to admit 
that it is right; if it does not survive it is wrong. The 
voice of history is the voice of God. 

If this were the whole story, the logical thing for us 
to do would be to throw up our hands at once and sur¬ 
render. But it is not the whole story. Politics is essen¬ 
tially a practical matter. It is, indeed', concerned with 
the ultimate welfare of the nation, but its main concern 


11 


must always be with that which is present and immediate, 
with the problems and difficulties here and now. And at 
this point, I venture to think, we .reach the parting of the 
ways. Firmly as I believe that the deliberate action of 
the people will in the long run be right, I am entirely 
unable to convince myself that in the short run, upon any 
given issue within the scope of practical politics, the unre¬ 
strained voice of the multitude is at all certain to declare 
for wisdom, or righteousness, or practical efficiency. Edu¬ 
cated, organized, directed, led by the best intelligence and 
the purest motive, the voice of the people is, in very truth, 
the voice of God; left to itself it is far more likely to be 
only the hoarse, raucous voice of the ignorant and un¬ 
thinking mob. The world owes much to liberty, but we 
do not forget that crimes have been committed in that 
name. 

Here, then, we find the sphere of an aristocracy in a 
democracy. Upon the aristocracy devolves, in any popu¬ 
lar "government, the indispensable function of leadership, 
the maintenance of high ideals, the organization of wis¬ 
dom, experience and farseeing ambition for the public 
welfare. I have not in mind a vulgar aristocracy of mere 
wealth, although even that has its uses; or of mere social 
prominence, although that may minister to social happi¬ 
ness ; or of mere hereditary descent, although it is a price¬ 
less possession to have been well born; or of mere public 
service, although politics is accounted the highest occupa¬ 
tion of a gentleman. The aristocracy which pictures itself 
before me is, rather, one of sound physique, disciplined 
intelligence, trained efficiency, public spirit, cosmopolitan 
tastes, a feeling for history and tradition, and unpreten¬ 
tious good manners. It is an aristocracy of the best men. 

Let us scrutinize for a moment the terms of that defini¬ 
tion. First, sound physique. After generations of animal- 



12 


ism, sustained by a false theory of morality and a perni¬ 
cious notion of religious obligation, the modern world is 
at last awakening to the menace of the unfit. It is trying 
to secure, in the production of human beings, something 
of the intelligence which has come to be exercised widely 
in the propagation of horses and cattle. Slowly but 
steadily we are developing an aristocracy of the well and 
properly born, every member of which will take pride in 
his father and mother, and will cultivate the same pride 
in his children. The world lost much when it dispensed 
with ancestor worship, and I welcome the new and modern 
revival of it. I honor the men and women who keep alive 
the memory of their ancestors, and who seek, in pains¬ 
taking and self-sacrifice, to keep their family line pure 
and strong. 

Second, disciplined intelligence and trained efficiency. 
In an age of enormous wealth we still give to education 
only the dog’s share of attention, shelter and food 1 . Four 
dollars and^ixty-four cents represents the average annual 
expenditure per capita in this country for education, and 
we pay our teachers on the average two dollars a day. 
Our industries and our politics are calling loudly for men 
of sound learning, disciplined minds, trained ability and 
sure grasp. I cannot agree with those who would elimi¬ 
nate the expert from government. It seems to me that 
we need the expert very much, and that the business of 
the people’s welfare is too important to be trusted to 
amateurs. Would not the business interests of this 
country breathe a sigh of relief if it were known that a 
statesman of the calibre of Alexander Hamilton, your sec¬ 
ond President-General, was to direct the work of currency 
reform? And would we not gratefully doff our hats to 
him as an aristocrat of intellectual power? 


13 


Third, public spirit. A kindly critic has told us that, 
with all our political virtues, the United States is the 
only country in the world in which politics is not regarded 
as the proper occupation of a gentleman. Such was not 
the case when your Society was founded, nor for many 
years thereafter. Until the Civil War, throughout the 
country, men of family, wealth and culture figured large 
in the public service of the States and' the nation, and 
were looked upon by all as the natural holders of public 
office, the natural spokesmen of the people. After a gen¬ 
eration of boss and machine rule, there are now signs of 
a return to this older order of things. Young men of 
family, education, wealth and position, true aristocrats 
of the American democracy, are more and more entering 
political life and serving the cause of good government. 
May their tribe increase until none shall be found too 
rich, too influential, too well-born, too enmeshed in social 
obligation or convention, to serve the common weal! 

Again, in the items of our definition, the element of 
cosmopolitan taste. Some one will suspect at once that 
I am going to characterize American society as provincial, 
and so I am. For proof, look at our newspapers. In this 
country of nearly a hundred million people, you may 
count on your fingers the metropolitan journals from 
which you may glean more than a few scanty indications 
of what is being said, thought or done in the world. We 
have not a half-dozen magazines in which a serious liter¬ 
ary, historical or philosophical essay could find a place. 
The reason is perfectly simple,'—we do not as a people 
care about what is being said or thought or done in the 
world, and we have not the patience to wade through a 
serious essay; and so the editor, with the fear of the 
counting-room before his eyes, gives his readers the local, 


It 


provincial news, tlie ephemeral article that they want. 
But your aristocrat is not of that sort. To him, the proper 
study of mankind is man. He would orient himself, not 
in the culture of Harvard or Yale, or the society of Bos¬ 
ton or New York, but in the thought and life of the 
world. We are talking today of world power, and we are 
attaining it; of world business, and we are growing to¬ 
ward it; of world peace, and we are discerning it afar 
off; let us rise also to the conception of world culture, 
and break forever the shackles of a little Americanism. 

Once more, a feeling for history and tradition. I know 
of nothing which, in the practical affairs of life, so forti¬ 
fies the mental judgment and clarifies the moral vision 
as the consciousness that the present is rooted in the past, 
that we are what we are because of what we have been. 
It is the dead, not the living, that count the most in life. 
The theology of the Roman Church evolved for the be¬ 
liever the idea of a treasury of good works, in which the 
good deeds and pious aspirations of all the faithful, in¬ 
definitely greater in volume than was demanded for their 
own salvation, might be availed of for righteousness by 
the generations who should come after. Some such treas¬ 
ury is yours. In the lives of the men who, in the long 
succession of a hundred and thirty years, have served as 
general officers of your Society,—Washington, Hamilton, 
the Pinckneys, Horace Binney, Hamilton Fish,—what a 
wealth of ability and motive and achievement for the 
great tasks of the present! What a chastening restraint 
on haste, frivolity, or discouragement! What a treasury 
of power and steadfastness for you who may call them 
brethren! 

And, lastly, unpretentious good manners. Do we fall 
easily into the careless and incorrect speech, the slouch- 


ing gait, the cheap and gaudy attire, the loud assertion 
of our rights or pretensions, the irreverence in holy places, 
the flippant criticism of men in public life, or the con¬ 
tempt for law which enshroud us like a miasma on every 
hand? Then truly are we of the earth, earthy; but also, 
it must be confessed, rather typically American also. I 
am no advocate of militarism, but I would be willing to 
have the American youth of today put through a few 
years of military discipline, in order that, he might learn 
to stand erect on both feet, to walk without shambling, 
to keep his person and his clothes clean, and to yield 
instinctive respect to recognized authority. Very minor 
virtues these are in themselves, it is true, but everywhere 
and always they mark the man who accepts, in sincerity 
and humility, the heavy responsibilities of honorable 
birth and intellectual leadership. 

I congratulate you, therefore, members of the Society 
of the Cincinnati, upon your place in the roll of American 
aristocracy. I congratulate you that, because much has 
been given to you, much is required of you. In the long 
list of American patriotic societies your Society admittedly 
takes the lead. Dwell as you may upon the greatness 
of your honorable past, there is happily no danger that 
you will become a group apart, or that pride of birth will 
overshadow pride of citizenship. To this only would I 
summon you: that you accept the burden of leadership 
that is laid upon. you. To you belong of right the clearer 
vision, the wider knowledge, the deeper experience. See 
to it that if the people, the vast, restless, seething, strug¬ 
gling mass of people, perchance go wrong, it be through 
no fault of yours. See to it that, as far as in you lies, 

“That which may come, that which must come, 

“Shall come well.” 



V 



V 1 


% 










V • -i ' s’ '- A'to . - •-* <*,.> V*r--v 

• 7~7 ^77 7 ->- 7 ‘ v Vi' '■ ,^V- • f.. •• •' 

V’ x, 4>-. ■;«/> &gry v; ;_- $ k . k$ v -> 


’ Mi 

/Jf 


J» '<■ >> . •*► l V'« 

. 

c °ngress 


i->- 

fe.- 




0 027 119 817 6 








5t> 

- - 1 ' r«. a. 












‘i-. • c 

lc« v - ^ 


Sctfc 


-.«*■* I 


I 


, > '■”7<yif7 *1-! 


*V -i 


*' •> 


:* .' * 


i> 4 - f y •.„.* \ 

r xfJS* 




Jg£ 




rf* 


’ ■ JtsLA&i 










-i.t 




